1055:
829:, and can I get northern pike and walleye there? Some of them seem smaller but Gillies Lake does have wheelchair access and a swimming area. McArthur Lake might not have one, because of the rocky shore. The point is that this article has more information than many, maybe most, articles about lakes, and assuming the author got the information from reliable sources, the lake must be notable. It hurts no one for this information to remain and might be helpful to someone. More knowledge is better than less knowledge.
1324:, the standard for inclusion of lakes is set pretty low when compared to most other topics. As long as we can verify it actually exists and something more is known about it than just its location, I see no reason not to keep. I know we deleted some articles about lakes in Alaska a few months ago, but they were very remote and virtually nothing was known about them, this doesn't seem to be the case here.--
421:
311:
843:
None of which are valid reasons in and of themselves why a lake needs an encyclopedia article about it. On the types of sources shown here, it would be possible to write an article about every single lake that exists at all anywhere in the world — no lake ever fails to show up on a map, for example —
771:
Can I go fishing on McArthur Lake? Yes, it's used for recreation and there are over 20 camps and cottages there. I might get walleye or northern pike, but I'd better not go in the winter because the lake is frozen over. It looks beautiful in the photo but the map shows it's a little out of the way. I
1380:
Knowledge (XXG) article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.
964:
I think this particular lake is notable. I base that on the fact that someone was able to write a moderately substantial article about it using other than original research; it has more information and sources than many similar articles. Your threshold for notability is much higher than mine. That's
904:
Every single person, place or thing who exists at all, including you, me, my dead cat and the park bench behind my apartment building, could make the exact same argument that a
Knowledge (XXG) article is necessary because "people won't know about it otherwise" — what needs to be answered is not "why
390:
it. And no, not just "any source that may reasonably be considered reliable and independent" contributes to notability — maps do not, indiscriminate government directories of every geographic location that exists within that government's terrain of jurisdiction do not, and on and so forth. A source
1379:
Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a
748:
collection of "all information that exists" — we have standards to determine what kinds of information we should be maintaining and what kinds we should not. The controlling question is not just whether readers would be "deprived" of this information if we deleted it, because every single person,
257:
that the lake is located in, which fails to even mention this lake at all in the process. So it's different enough to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content, but it still fails to demonstrate any reason why the lake would warrant a
Knowledge (XXG) article about it. As
363:
I see nothing in the guidelines that says only media coverage confers notability, or that historical, political or social context is needed. Any source that may reasonably be considered reliable and independent contributes to notability, and any useful type of information is appropriate. In this
786:
You can go fishing on very nearly every lake that exists at all, unless you'll get arrested for trespassing because it's on private property (and even then you can still try), or it's so badly polluted that the fish are dead (and even then you can still try). In Canada, basically
488:
This is very interesting. I always thought that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Where is the special rule for geographical topics stated?
586:
I added a couple more sources. Government of course so they were just doing their job and the data came from volunteers, who say water quality is good, although no journalists checked the results. I stayed clear of the fishing lodges, which would be advertising.
630:, cutting short useful discussion/decision about what to do there. I am sick of contrived articles / content about "lakes with MacArthur in their name". Aymatth2, why are you interested in these? Creating more articles and stretching this out is seeming
979:
And the only sources they used to write that article were maps, an indiscriminate government directory of every single geographic name that exists anywhere in all of Canada, and a tangential source which verifies the bedrock geology of the overall
439:
The editorial content rule is a new one to me. That means that just about every article on a butterfly should be deleted: no editorial content in the media, no historical, political or social context, just reference books and scientific papers.
1205:
332:
Neither the size of a lake, nor its accessibility or lack thereof by road, is an inclusion criterion for lakes in and of itself. Maps and directories are not notability-conferring sources, either, because they do not represent
206:
941:
an article. "Fewer people will know about it otherwise" — once again, an argument which every single person, place or thing who has ever existed at all could always make — is not a keep rationale in and of itself absent a
992:
the kind of sourcing it takes to make a lake notable — and while you're certainly right that my threshold for notability is higher than yours, you're wrong about which of our thresholds for notability is in
563:
than just nominal verication that it exists before it becomes an appropriate article topic. And since the geological stuff is referenced to the source that fails to mention the lake at all, you're also
634:
perhaps, i.e. disrupting
Knowledge (XXG) to make a point that every lake with MacArthur in its name needs a Knowledge (XXG) article, begging the question of "Why???". Deleting all would be best. --
378:
The base notability criterion, the one from which all other more specific criteria derive and the one that even a topic that technically meets an SNG still has to also satisfy, is that it is the
1338:
Wealways keep articles on named geographical feature unless they are of utterly trivial size. WP contains a gazeteer--this is a specific exemption to NOT INDISCRIMINATE found in the NOT policy.
890:
an article about it. It will go on as it is, whether or not we have an article. The only difference is that fewer people will know about it. Why would we want fewer people to know about it?
503:
That's not in conflict with what I said — what I said is a clarification and expansion of what "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
200:
917:
it exists to demonstrate that it passes a notability criterion", not just "it exists and here's a map and a photograph to prove it" — what an article needs to be keepable is an
795:
is a thing, even the fact that a lake has frozen over for the winter still doesn't prevent you from going fishing. So nope, you haven't "learned" anything that makes this lake
698:
652:
159:
1134:
Meets GNG per multiple sources per the above book search. No reason to delete this info, especially considering the potential redirect article is up for deletion as well. ~
623:
287:
238:
848:
an article about every single lake that exists at all anywhere in the world. What a lake requires, to qualify for a
Knowledge (XXG) article, is evidence that it's
310:. It is a fair-sized lake, accessible by road. The article is based entirely on reliable sources, which give a reasonable amount of useful information about it. A
91:
791:
lake freezes over in the winter except the Great Lakes, and even the Great Lakes freeze over too if the weather stays cold enough for long enough. And since
1088:
I have a bad feeling about where the above comment may lead – could be the start of a mass extinction. Just as long as nobody tries to delete any lakes in
106:
166:
132:
127:
515:
the lake, glancing namechecks of the lake's existence in coverage about other things (i.e. the Google Books search results you showed) do not represent
749:
place or thing who exists at all could always technically answer that question with a yes — the question is whether there's a reason why the topic is
345:
the lake, which still do not assist in establishing the lake's notability. The notability of a lake is established by historical, political or social
136:
814:
474:
automatically notable just for existing, which is why lakes have to meet a higher standard of significance than just being verifiable as existing.
119:
913:
how many people will or won't know about it?". The way any article about anything gets into
Knowledge (XXG) is "enough reliable source coverage
1089:
1411:
the lake in any subatantive way, just ones which glancingly mention its existence in the process of being about other things — which is
1016:
221:
188:
86:
79:
17:
547:
evidence that McArthur Lake passes the "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
241:. While this avoids all of the eyebrow-raising claims about district flags and island litter that pushed the first version toward
1271:
pretty clearly, as far as I can tell. Lots of books on the geology of the area, lots of mentions in
Timmins-area publications.
813:
I learned that I won't get arrested for trespassing and that not all the fish are dead. Are there also camps and cottages at
100:
96:
262:
automatically notable enough for inclusion here just because its existence is verifiable on maps — a lake needs to be the
182:
1358:
Incorrect. GEOLAND is quite explicit that the notability of geographic features is conditional on that feature being the
1291:
A lake does not pass GEOLAND on "books on the geology of the area" — a lake passes GEOLAND on sources in which the lake
1447:
1385:
There has to be enough material for an encyclopedic article, and more than one source, which is clearly the case here.
1238:
Two glancing mentions of the lake's existence in a journal article about a different lake is not "substantially" about
40:
1424:
1394:
1371:
1349:
1308:
1282:
1251:
1233:
1219:
1199:
1145:
1101:
1028:
1010:
974:
959:
899:
881:
838:
808:
781:
766:
731:
707:
689:
661:
643:
596:
581:
498:
483:
449:
408:
373:
358:
323:
299:
279:
123:
61:
745:
178:
1403:
the lake are maps and an indiscriminate "every geographic name that exists in Canada" directory. There are exactly
1058:
341:
the lake — and even your Google Search results bring up namechecks of the lake's existence in sources that are not
458:, and botany literature is a thing too. And "historical, political or social context" is an issue with regard to
1054:
228:
470:
is referenceable to maps and government directories of geographic names, but every lake that exists at all is
744:
information about in the first place? That's the question that requires answering here, because we're not an
718:. Can't think of a good reason to deprive readers of this information. Seems a little too long to merge into
270:
the lake to qualify for an article, but there's still no evidence being shown that this one has any of that.
1277:
1229:
685:
115:
67:
462:
topics, not flora and fauna. The base rule for geographic topics is that we have to be able to reference
1443:
657:
36:
194:
1211:
1137:
57:
1321:
1268:
556:
702:
466:
about the topic than just "it exists and here are some of its statistics" — every lake that exists
214:
1299:
of the source, of which there have been zero shown but maps and routine indiscriminate databases.
631:
1390:
1272:
1097:
1024:
970:
895:
834:
799:, because you haven't stated anything that makes it different from every other lake that exists.
777:
727:
592:
494:
454:
Butterfly species get written about by reliable sources: reference books, for example, are still
445:
424:
369:
319:
314:
shows various other sources that discuss different aspects of the lake, particularly mineralogy.
253:— the references here are entirely directory entries, maps and a source about the geology of the
565:
1015:
I don't think I said anything about whose threshold was aligned with WP's. I'll just point out
399:, in magazines or newspapers or books or radio/TV broadcasts, to contribute toward notability.
1420:
1367:
1304:
1247:
1225:
1195:
1006:
955:
877:
804:
762:
681:
639:
577:
479:
404:
354:
295:
275:
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1442:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
349:, not just by being technically able to reference the geological composition of its bedrock.
242:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1329:
569:
53:
930:
383:
246:
627:
1362:, independently of simply appearing on maps or in routine geographic names databases.
250:
1386:
1345:
1093:
1020:
966:
891:
830:
822:
773:
723:
719:
677:
588:
490:
441:
365:
364:
case, there is obviously considerable interest in the mineral potential of the lake.
315:
1416:
1363:
1300:
1243:
1191:
1002:
951:
873:
826:
800:
758:
635:
573:
475:
400:
350:
291:
271:
420:
153:
1186:, of Google hits when using Google to establish notability — so what sources are
1325:
872:
it), not just the ability to verify that it's on maps and there are fish in it.
818:
792:
1340:
507:. Maps and government geoname databases, for starters, do not represent
572:
about the lake itself — which is also against
Knowledge (XXG)'s rules.
1190:
the lake for the purposes of establishing the notability of the lake?
1415:
how you establish a lake as notable enough to clear the GEOLAND bar.
1053:
419:
523:
the lake, and the only other source you've added here completely
1162:
the lake in any substantive and non-trivial way — sources which
1438:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
905:
would we want fewer people to know about it?", but "why is it
740:
Can you think of a reason why this lake is a thing readers
1224:
No, those are just passing mentions, as far as I can see.
551:— all you've shown is nominal verification that the lake
149:
145:
141:
757:
be "depriving" readers of anything they need to know.
237:
New article about the same lake previously deleted at
213:
1360:
subject of reliable source attention in its own right
680:, where it has a paragraph. That's more than enough.
624:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/MacArthurs Lake
1204:
You are probably not going to like this answer, but
772:didn't know any of that before I read the article.
239:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/McArthur Lake
227:
1166:the lake in the process of being about something
925:for people to know about it, namely passage of a
753:enough that its non-inclusion in Knowledge (XXG)
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1450:). No further edits should be made to this page.
697:Note: This discussion has been included in the
651:Note: This discussion has been included in the
286:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1377:
860:the ability to show that the lake has been the
699:list of Geography-related deletion discussions
653:list of Geography-related deletion discussions
8:
1158:what sources in the Google Books search are
288:list of Ontario-related deletion discussions
107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
696:
650:
285:
245:territory, what it doesn't actually do is
568:sources about other topics to create new
815:Bolton Lake (Cochrane District, Ontario)
1001:threshold. (Hint: that would be mine.)
852:notable than most other lakes for some
1092:. Don't even think about Little Lake.
626:, which IMO was unhelpfully closed by
1090:Category:Lakes of Peterborough County
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
559:is quite clear that a lake requires
249:any new indication that the lake is
1017:Category:Lakes of Cochrane District
672:per nom and prev. Afd decision and
1208:is substantially about the lake. ~
24:
984:without even mentioning the lake
622:. There is also recently-closed
965:simply a difference of opinion.
92:Introduction to deletion process
1399:The only sources here that are
543:the lake. So you haven't shown
722:, otherwise that would be ok.
1:
950:for people to know about it.
1407:other sources here that are
535:and thus does not represent
266:of reliable source coverage
82:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1467:
1332:) 23:08, 14June 2018 (UTC)
1174:the same thing as sources
1059:Little Lake (Peterborough)
1425:15:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
1395:17:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
1372:16:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
1350:17:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
1309:16:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
1283:19:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
1252:16:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
1234:22:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
1220:20:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
1200:18:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
1178:the lake. We look at the
1146:18:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
1102:02:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
1029:17:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
1011:20:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
975:19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
960:19:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
900:19:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
882:19:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
839:18:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
809:17:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
782:17:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
767:16:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
732:06:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
708:03:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
690:00:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
662:21:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
644:20:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
597:03:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
582:18:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
499:18:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
484:17:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
450:17:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
409:16:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
374:19:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
359:19:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
324:18:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
300:18:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
280:18:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
62:16:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
1440:Please do not modify it.
1376:The relevant section is:
988:in the process. That is
32:Please do not modify it.
1382:
1061:
844:but we can't feasibly
427:
312:search in Google books
258:always, every lake is
116:McArthur Lake, Ontario
68:McArthur Lake, Ontario
1057:
720:McArthur Lake#Ontario
678:McArthur Lake#Ontario
423:
80:Articles for deletion
856:reason (such as at
1062:
428:
425:Marpesia zerynthia
1104:
1019:for comparables.
999:Knowledge (XXG)'s
710:
664:
570:original research
391:has to represent
302:
97:Guide to deletion
87:How to contribute
1458:
1280:
1214:
1154:Kindly identify
1140:
1087:
921:reason why it's
705:
660:
232:
231:
217:
169:
157:
139:
77:
34:
1466:
1465:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1448:deletion review
1276:
1212:
1138:
931:reliable source
703:
656:
397:about the topic
384:reliable source
247:reliably source
174:
165:
130:
114:
111:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1464:
1462:
1453:
1452:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1383:
1353:
1352:
1333:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1286:
1285:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1236:
1182:, not the raw
1149:
1148:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
929:criterion and
746:indiscriminate
735:
734:
712:
711:
693:
692:
666:
665:
647:
646:
628:User:Sandstein
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
327:
326:
304:
303:
235:
234:
171:
110:
109:
104:
94:
89:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1463:
1451:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1436:
1435:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1381:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1342:
1337:
1334:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1316:
1315:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1279:
1274:
1273:SportingFlyer
1270:
1266:
1263:
1262:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1207:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1147:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1133:
1130:
1129:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1060:
1056:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
991:
987:
983:
978:
977:
976:
972:
968:
963:
962:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
940:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
912:
908:
903:
902:
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
884:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
851:
847:
842:
841:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
823:Kesagami Lake
820:
816:
812:
811:
810:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
785:
784:
783:
779:
775:
770:
769:
768:
764:
760:
756:
752:
747:
743:
739:
738:
737:
736:
733:
729:
725:
721:
717:
714:
713:
709:
706:
700:
695:
694:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
671:
668:
667:
663:
659:
658:North America
654:
649:
648:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
618:
617:
598:
594:
590:
585:
584:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
566:synthesizeing
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
501:
500:
496:
492:
487:
486:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
452:
451:
447:
443:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
426:
422:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
389:
385:
381:
377:
376:
375:
371:
367:
362:
361:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
331:
330:
329:
328:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
306:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
284:
283:
282:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
230:
226:
223:
220:
216:
212:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
180:
177:
176:Find sources:
172:
168:
164:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
108:
105:
102:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
84:
83:
81:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1439:
1437:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1378:
1359:
1339:
1335:
1317:
1296:
1292:
1275:
1264:
1239:
1226:Clarityfiend
1210:
1209:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1156:specifically
1155:
1136:
1135:
1131:
998:
994:
989:
985:
981:
947:
943:
938:
934:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
887:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
827:Gillies Lake
796:
788:
754:
750:
741:
715:
682:Clarityfiend
673:
669:
619:
560:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
396:
392:
387:
379:
346:
342:
338:
334:
307:
267:
263:
259:
254:
236:
224:
218:
210:
203:
197:
191:
185:
175:
162:
73:
49:
47:
31:
28:
919:affirmative
866:substantive
854:substantive
819:Cariad Lake
793:ice fishing
537:significant
517:significant
509:significant
201:free images
1322:WP:GEOLAND
1269:WP:GEOLAND
927:notability
557:WP:GEOLAND
460:geographic
54:Randykitty
1444:talk page
1320:- Passes
995:alignment
948:important
946:why it's
933:coverage
923:important
868:coverage
751:important
632:wp:POINTY
539:coverage
531:the lake
519:coverage
511:coverage
393:editorial
386:coverage
337:coverage
37:talk page
1446:or in a
1387:Aymatth2
1094:Aymatth2
1021:Station1
967:Station1
892:Station1
886:No lake
831:Station1
774:Station1
724:Station1
704:MT Train
674:redirect
589:Aymatth2
527:to even
491:Aymatth2
442:Aymatth2
395:content
366:Aymatth2
316:Aymatth2
255:township
160:View log
101:glossary
39:or in a
1417:Bearcat
1364:Bearcat
1301:Bearcat
1297:subject
1295:is the
1267:passes
1244:Bearcat
1192:Bearcat
1180:quality
1164:mention
1003:Bearcat
952:Bearcat
939:support
909:job to
874:Bearcat
862:subject
846:sustain
801:Bearcat
797:notable
759:Bearcat
636:Doncram
574:Bearcat
555:, when
529:mention
476:Bearcat
401:Bearcat
380:subject
351:Bearcat
347:context
292:Bearcat
272:Bearcat
264:subject
251:notable
207:WP refs
195:scholar
133:protect
128:history
78:New to
1326:Rusf10
1293:itself
1242:lake.
1184:number
986:at all
982:region
944:reason
937:it to
670:Delete
620:Delete
553:exists
549:at all
533:at all
468:at all
179:Google
137:delete
1409:about
1401:about
1346:talk
1188:about
1176:about
1160:about
997:with
935:about
915:about
888:needs
870:about
858:least
825:, or
789:every
755:would
541:about
525:fails
521:about
513:about
505:means
456:books
388:about
343:about
339:about
335:media
268:about
222:JSTOR
183:books
167:Stats
154:views
146:watch
142:links
16:<
1421:talk
1405:zero
1391:talk
1368:talk
1336:Keep
1330:talk
1318:Keep
1305:talk
1278:talk
1265:Keep
1248:talk
1240:this
1230:talk
1213:EDDY
1206:this
1196:talk
1170:are
1168:else
1139:EDDY
1132:Keep
1098:talk
1025:talk
1007:talk
971:talk
956:talk
911:care
896:talk
878:talk
850:more
835:talk
805:talk
778:talk
763:talk
742:need
728:talk
716:Keep
686:talk
640:talk
593:talk
578:talk
561:more
495:talk
480:talk
464:more
446:talk
405:talk
370:talk
355:talk
320:talk
308:Keep
296:talk
276:talk
243:hoax
215:FENS
189:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
58:talk
50:keep
1413:not
1341:DGG
1172:not
990:not
907:our
864:of
676:to
545:any
472:not
382:of
260:not
229:TWL
158:– (
1423:)
1393:)
1370:)
1348:)
1307:)
1250:)
1232:)
1218:~
1198:)
1144:~
1100:)
1027:)
1009:)
973:)
958:)
898:)
880:)
837:)
821:,
817:,
807:)
780:)
765:)
730:)
701:.
688:)
655:.
642:)
595:)
580:)
497:)
482:)
448:)
407:)
372:)
357:)
322:)
298:)
290:.
278:)
209:)
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
60:)
52:.
1419:(
1389:(
1366:(
1344:(
1328:(
1303:(
1246:(
1228:(
1194:(
1096:(
1023:(
1005:(
969:(
954:(
894:(
876:(
833:(
803:(
776:(
761:(
726:(
684:(
638:(
591:(
576:(
493:(
478:(
444:(
403:(
368:(
353:(
318:(
294:(
274:(
233:)
225:·
219:·
211:·
204:·
198:·
192:·
186:·
181:(
173:(
170:)
163:·
156:)
118:(
103:)
99:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.